Intelligence-based tax enforcement may proceed across administrations; classification and suppression disputes must be taken to the appellate forum.

State tax authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action even where the taxpayer is assigned to the Central administration, so jurisdiction was upheld for such proceedings. The writ court declined to examine the classification dispute on merits because it involved disputed questions of fact, which are ordinarily not determined under Article 226. The challenge to the suppression finding and the invocation of proceedings was treated as a matter for the appellate authority, and the writ petitions were dismissed with the petitioner left to pursue the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State tax authorities could initiate intelligence-based enforcement action despite the taxpayer being registered under the Central authorities, and whether the classification dispute and challenge to the suppression finding could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The enforcement issue was answered against the petitioner on the basis that intelligence-based action may be initiated by either the Central or the State tax administration even where the taxpayer has been assigned to the other administration. The challenge on classification was not examined on merits because it involved disputed questions of fact, which are not ordinarily resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge to the suppression finding and invocation of proceedings was also held to be a matter for the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The State authorities were held to have jurisdiction to initiate the enforcement proceedings, and the writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioner to work out the appellate remedy.

---